Slashdot Mirror
Every Vista Computer Gets Its Own Domain Name
c_forq writes, "According to APC magazine, every new Windows Vista computer will be given its own domain name to access files remotely. There is a catch though: to use it one must be using IPv6. Is the push for Vista also going to be the push finally to switch everything from IPv4 to IPv6?" Microsoft, meanwhile, is trying to convince businesses to adopt both Vista and Office 2007 at once. An analyst is quoted: 'In all likelihood, enterprises will tie deployment of both Vista and Office 2007 with a hardware upgrade cycle.' His reasoning is that it will be easier for companies to handle one disruption to IT systems than two. Or three.
This makes my botnet administration much easier.
Our company did last year, cities of Vienna and Munich did, it should work out very nicely for you too. Our former XP users love KDE.
No need to put yourself through pains when you can improve security, save money and achieve a good deal of vendor independence all at the same time. Why support the Microsoft monopoly by paying ridiculous prices for bug ridden software with DRM restrictions, when you can run Free software on the industry standard (and thus inexpensive) hardware?
Knowing everything I know now, I only regret that we did not migrate to GNU/Linux sooner.
> "it will be easier for companies to handle one disruption to its IT systems than two. Or three."
I couldn't agree more: switch to BOTH Linux and OpenOffice.org 2.0 at the same time.
Well, it is.
Anything that gets IPv6 in use.
When is Slashdot going to drag itself into the 21st century, out of interest? It's not that hard. And you can use a tunnel broker if your ISP don't supply native v6.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I've heard you can type much faster in Word2007. If that's not a reason to upgrade I don't know what is.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
Anyone who wants to post comments claiming that IPv6 is never going to be deployed, please do so in this thread.
http://outcampaign.org/
Future domain names attached to Microsoft's name
microsoft-eats-children.share.live.com
nochildpornhere.share.live.com
microsoftupdate.com.share.live.com
update.paypal.com.share.live.com
freexxxdonkiesandmidgetsgonewild.share.live.com
I don't think it is all that wise to upgrade both an OS and a full Office suite at the same time. It's really best to roll out one thing at a time, and make sure it all works. The UI changes alone are going to freak users out. I know of places that are just now rolling out XP, and they are doing it one section at a time. The more testing you do, the safer you are.
Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
Vista will actually be useful... 1) Fueling hardware upgrades 2) Encouraging, on a huge scale, migration to IPv6 3) Fixing a great deal of the holes in WinXP 4) Allowing hardware changes without requiring new installations of Vista 5) etc...
Most of the spam blocking systems depend upon IP addresses.
... no way is it easier to upgrade the hardware, the OS and the apps at the same time. You'll waste too much time trying to find out if the problem is a bad motherboard or driver or ... anything.
With IPv6, there are (effectively) an unlimited number of IP addresses available for spammers. "Effectively" because no one is going to run a database big enough to track them as fast as the spammers change them. Every message could come from its own IP address on a cracked system.
And the other article
Please try to convince my company to upgrade!
Every day I use such great microsoft products as NT 4, Office 97 (with outlook upgraded with the free 98 (about a year ago, OL 97 before that), IE 5.5, or is it 5.0? I forget.
Simple truth is most companies have no reason to upgrade. It aint gonna make them more money.
+----------------- | What is the question!
D'ya reckon you can type /. comments faster too?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Firstly the idea of each user having their own remote space is good in theory. This is actually something useful which comes with Vista... although there could be serious problems with it; how safe is it? I wouldn't be at all amazed if this was hacked about 3 seconds after the first user puts any files on this because people will refuse to use good passwords. But in principle its good. The T&Cs might change that. Everyone will have to move to IPv6 anyway at some time I think so we shouldn't be too worried about that
As for them pushing the update to Office 2007 - well, that's what they're in business for... I'm not amazed and I'm not disapointed.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Vista and Office at the same time? Someone in the sales dept. is smoking crack and dreaming of an annual bonus. Hell, why not upgrade all the servers to 2003, Exchange, etc.!
How about changing one thing at a time and seeing how it works, first?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
If Linux were introducing something like this, you'd be saying it's the bestestest thing ever...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Yea, right. My ISP and may others are out there port blocking so that I can't share any files on my Windows boxes across the Internet with normal Windows file sharing techniques, and somehow we are expected to believe that with Vista will come a drastic change in mindset, rather than going out of their way to block ports to stop us from doing something, ISPs will suddenly expend effort to make connectivity better? Yea, sure, I believe that as much as I believe anything Microsoft says.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Is the push for Vista also going to be the push finally to switch everything from IPv4 to IPv6?
No, unless THERE'S NO MORE IPv4 SUPPORT! Don't understand? Here's an analogy:
In other news, the US version of Vista comes with two identical manuals: one in English, and another in Esperanto.
Most Americans who need to read the manual speak English, use English to talk to each other, and do their daily business in English, but hey, Esperanto is so much cooler, for technical reasons that most Vista users don't care about.
Is the push for Vista also going to be the push finally to switch everything from English to Esperanto?
If you don't understand why IPv6 is a geek fantasy that no one will "switch" to, you either don't know what the word "switch" means (it means REPLACE), or you don't actually work in IT.
And if you like IPv6 so much, how come you're still on IPv4, accessing Slashdot?
If your only reason for switching to Vista is that there'll be no more security updates for Win2K/XP, maybe some third party can take over? Already there's been a few examples of companies providing patches ahead of Patch Tuesday.
ICN and PNRP seem like a good idea but it's just like DNS writ large with a million levels rather than 3 or 4. It's basically the equivalent of everyone running their own DNS server on their computer that randomly accepts entries from other computers on the net and no root servers or authority at all. The "secured" name makes sure that when (if) you finally find your computer by randomly traversing the P2P network of PNRP servers, the client can compare the name with the hash address of the computer.
They have a whitepaper over at M$FT that talks a little about it. As always, it's one of those "features" that they will leverage themselves to speed up their MSN content delivery in return for a free windows "live" subscription. Lame.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
This will still involve port forwarding, and probably wont be forcing itself on a user, so it will be nearly invisible and impossible to configure for the average user. Enough said...
The headline doesn't actually say DNS, but it implies it. But the article makes it clear that it's not actually an internet domain that is being offered, but a "Windows Internet Computing Name", which is resolved using a protocol other than DNS (specifically, PNRP, whatever that is).
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Can you please stop tagging articles "itsatrap", "fud", "notfud", "no" and "yes"? it makes tagging system useless
"Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
That is, if I ever get a WinVista box. I'm probably saying sayonara to Windows after sticking with them since MS-DOS (think it was either 1.0 or 2.0, not sure which) for my base home machine (now a laptop). With Open Office and all the other web-based things, I just don't care anymore, and I've mostly switched to console gaming for the most part. Can always hold out six months till they release it for the Mac and use my son's Mac Mini if need be.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
sheesh, it's no like they're handing out .com's - there's just a DNS entry - chances are you have one already associated with your computer.
I was excited about IPv6 earlier this year when I read about U.S. military adoption. But I discovered that IPv6 has a history of false expectations and the buzz trend is still not positive.
r y=ipv6_meme_update
From July 2006 -
http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme/?ent
Can I grab microsoft.com please? :-P
Uh.... actually I prefer to wait for IPv8 comes out. :-)
One obvious question: Will Vista really use IPv6, or an "extended" IPv6-like protocol with patented MS extensions? Anyone know? Is there any chance that we could end up in court if we interoperate with it?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Since I work on a Help Desk, I will find out early next year how much job security I will have when Vista/Office and hardware upgrades is rolled out. Of course, job security doesn't translate into good health. Got to pay the piper somewhere.
'In all likelihood, enterprises will tie deployment of both Vista and Office 2007 with a hardware upgrade cycle.' His reasoning is that it will be easier for companies to handle one disruption to its IT systems than two.
Of course. The Chinese used this reasoning when developing torture techniques. Would you rather die with a single gunshot to the brain, or millions of tiny paper cuts?
IT systems to Microsoft: "Please, just get it over with."
First off, I've never deployed anything on IPv6 so maybe it is a totally different system where security is concerned... Seems to me though, ok so all these Vista boxes are going to be out there on the net with a new name resolution system to allow hackers to scan through them, and as I understand it IPv6 doesn't have NAT or anything (the idea being IPv6 will let you put things directly on the net). So... how on earth are we trusting MS to secure the plague they are about to lose on the world?
Sure MS has their firewall now, but to make this remotely useful you're going to have to open up some ports. I just see this being a huge security nightmare. Yeah lets make it easy for everyone to put their systems right on the internet!
Finally, with Vista, I can be truly anonymous!
You can do this on ANY XP Home (SP2?) computer currently (i don't know if you could pre-sp2) network connections -> (any adapter) rclick:(propertys) -> install (ipv6) once you have ipv6 on the same window goto advanced -> windows firewall settings -> File and Printer Sharing -> Edit -> Change scope (allow any computer on the internet as opposed to default subnet) there same thing done, without the new hw or OS pricetag
09:F9:11:02 - 9D:74:E3:5B - D8:41:56:C5 - 63:56:88:C0
I'd install Vista on a new computer if it came with Vista (I do not trust default loadouts. I -always- re-install, or at the minimum, print the drive from a ghosted image)
Office 2007, I'd do across the whole company. We had a procedure to upgrade people. Now mind you we had 120 employees, so our problems/solutions may not match yours. We had a requirement where -EVERY- user had to come to the IT room for the upgrade, and we checked off the whiteboard who got what. After $time, anyone who didn't, got locked off the network for not following procedures. (with upgrade paths and 'forgive' paths for certain classes)
This allowed us to track who got what license onto what machine, and allowed us to guarantee $x licenses of $y product.
I am so sick of Microsoft's operating systems and pointless OFFICE upgrades forcing corporate america's hands into wasting money on software and hardware resulting in firing REAL EMPLOYEES that actually give value to the business. Ever since Windows 2000 and Office 97 I haven't seen any significant reason for anyone to upgrade the operating system or office. The only reason people upgrade office is because microsoft gets away with making the new versions of their office documents backwards incompatible. This upgrade is "easy" for corporate america which then affects personal and small business because they can't open excel or word documents from the "big boys" making them have to spend the $350 to upgrade.
As far as anything beyond Windows 2000, there is little to no reason for any corporation to upgrade from windows 98se or Windows 2000 OTHER THAN virus and security patch support from microsoft and other third parties. Microsoft has not felt any squeeze ever since being declaired a 'MONOPOLY'. One of the results of this verdict should be that they should have to maintain SECURITY PATCHES for previous versions of windows and make their FORWARD PRODUCTS of office backwards compatible BY DEFAULT not by choice.
Please, make the maddness stop! Do not upgrade your hardware just to hand over more money to microsoft.
Look into Macs, Look into Linux, anything than giving more money to microsoft. All they do with their money is grow and intrude and ruin more markets. (ie. Zune, XBox 360)
You think microsoft has really "innovated and expanded" the markets they have intruded? HECK NO!
Look at the current game console market. Ever since the XBOX now there are hardly any "exclusive console" titles, everyone makes games that are genericly engineered for ALL the consoles. They don't spend the time focusing releases on a single console any more. Game developers don't want to limit their customer base so they make their game's graphics and controls generic to port to all consoles. In the end this affects the consumers poorly because the games are all kinda "BLAH". Sure, microsot has helped bring some great first person shooters (halo) to the world, BUT that game was already being developed for the PS2 PRIOR to Microsoft purchasing the title and making them reengineer the game instead of finish it up as good as it was going to be. Halo would have been BETTER if microsoft wasn't in the picture. imagine that.
IPV4 has been fine so far...
Can someone remind me again why we didn't go OSI instead? Rather than re-inventing the wheel again, that is. Oh yeah, design by committee...
IPV6 has been defined by a working group, not a committee... That's ok then...
C'mon, give me a reason to upgrade. What do I get out of it?
Deleted
There are not fully effective black list either. So lets burn all computers. ;)
Those handcuffs Microsoft are selling will look pretty good. The price will be right so no one will notice.
/ 1435204)
But then, as the handcuffs start to tighten when MS demands more and more in license costs then what? Where do enterprises go in 3-5 years?
You won't be able to switch to linux because MS will have Embraced/Extended/Extinguished it. (as mentioned here: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/07
If you value your freedom, then you will switch OS's. Now. Mac/BSD/Linux are three to consider.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
And the reason for that, in my experience, is that the bigger companies have more time and expertise invested in their existing systems.
Changing a server OS & app when you have 10 people using it is far different than when you have 10,000 people using it.
just resembles the times when the hardware industry (mobo manufacturers, graphics card manufacturers and cpu manufacturers) 'invent' or 'reinvent' some technology and switch to it, making the mobo, graphics cards and cpu you bought 1 year ago due to 'upgradability', obsolete. so they force you to change all stuff in your box and force sales.
this very much resembles it. 'its better if you change them all' or implyingly, 'you have to change them all'. which is definitely something that came out of 'marketing' serpents.
i always say this; marketing, human resources divisions are the ones that totally mess up companies. marketing divisions mess up companies' reputation and credibility and clients, human resource sdivisions mess up companie's employees.
Read radical news here
Is that most HAVE to upgrade, since they bought into the MOLP treadmill.
That and when you cant buy a PC with drivers for anything older then Vista you dont have many choices. its harder to support 2 flavors of an OS then just bite the bullet and upgrade the rest of them too.
not that im looking forward to it, but its going to come, regardless of how much we complain or wish it wouldnt. We said the same about XP.. it came..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Microsoft, meanwhile, is trying to convince businesses to adopt both Vista and Office 2007 at once." Their method: charging hundreds of dollars for a simple document, spreadsheet, and slide editor when there are free programs available that do the exact same thing.
This will make it much easier for Bill to look in on you, make sure you're ok, check your DRM status,
;-)
make sure you've got Genuine Disadvantage, delete that pesky rival's software, and generally rummage through your drawers. If you read the fineprint on Windows Media Player he already has the right to do this anyway. This just makes it so much easier.
China mandated IPv6 for the same reason. Well, not the DRM part anyway
The article mentioned something about most current routers not being compatible with IPv6. I don't need to get a new router when I move to Vista do I? BTW this is a serious question, as I know nothing about this.
I am curious as to how PNRP works with Zeroconf. Does it 1)implement zeroconf, 2)interoperate with zeroconf, or 3)is completely incompatible with zeroconf? AFAIK zeroconf already does p2p name resolution and is an open standard. Is PNRP gonna be a standard?
.
sure I'll have a sig.
I work for a somewhat small newspaper with a few windows machines (most of our boxes are Macs) - there is NO WAY we could afford to upgrade all our Windows machines with Vista AND get the latest office at the same time. I'm guessing that most small-to-medium sized shops are going to be the same - Especially given the huge hardware requirements for Vista.
Give us a cheap pro version of Vista, OEM (XP Pro OEM is only around 130 bucks), and we might consider it. Otherwise, no thanks. Too costly.
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
For the first time in MS history, an OS release will make all your hardware obsolete. Every other iteration I have seen offered some features while promising to keep your current hardware alive (for a while). Got a 386 4MB RAM running DOS? Win3.x will run perfectly on it and provide a lot more features! I have installed Win95 on a 486 8MB. Win2000 on a PII300 64MB. WinXP on a PIII800 128MB (until SP2 came out, that forced an upgrade to 256MB). All those systems have been used for daily, useful tasks. Now Vista promises you'll have to throw in the garbage your Celeron > 1GHz 512MB RAM which proved so far to be more than enough for XP. VERY unpleasant. And a bitter side-note: Tiger runs BETTER than Jaguar on my 800MHz 512MB RAM iMac :(
Speaking of Zealots that's Linux not GNU/Linux. In spite of what RMS says, he and his FSF have the trademark on GNU, not Linux(TM).
The distro creators can call their distro whatever the want. But the name of the OS stands as the creator and tradmark holder named it: Linux
Your quote completely sums up about 50% of the business reasons behind why ISPs are dragging their feet about implementing IPv6. Obviously, there's some overhead, which I count as the other 50%, but this particular 50% has to do with these two choice bits:
and:
Practically *everything* we've seen about the major media companies (which are increasingly also ISPs) is that they're struggling to force the internet into the TV paradigm. Unwittingly perhaps, but it seems that the NAT workaround has helped them do that. I'm not in the least surprised that these companies would do all they could to keep their audiences captive, and putting off IPv6 sure seems like part of that effort.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
No harm could ever come of this. There's no way that a security hole could possibly be found that exploits this somehow. There's no way that a user, confronted with router difficulties (from firewall misconfiguration or no IPv6 support) would decide "eh, I'll just run it without the router/firewall." There's no way that a person could, say, spoof another person's non-secure name, and get them sued by the RIAA or picked up on kiddy porn charges because lawyers and law enforcement don't understand technology.
Nope, nothing bad at all. Nosir.
In other news, Microsoft just landed a gig to run all the traffic lights in your town. Each traffic light will be connected to every other traffic light via a network, and will report its current ID and status (red, yellow, green) to the other lights. Via peer-to-peer technology, they'll regulate traffic on their own. What could go wrong?
granted ipv6 will take a little time for adoption around the world..
however, you can basically add dynamic dns services (such as dyndns.org) to the list of industries and businesses that microsoft is trying to takeover/monopolize/etc through bundling extra features in windows that have absolutely nothing to do with the core functions of an "operating system".
And ven ve know your ICBM address, ve vill be able to drop single kiloton nukes on your software-stealing ass.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
A) Knowing what DRM is.
B) Knowing why the developers conformed with a bloated media industry and a growing world police state standard (aka DRM)
C) Understanding that if you use Linux, you owe little to anyone save yourself.
D) Understanding that if you use a corporate OS, including corporate Linux, you are no longer responsible, the other guy is... this means that you can be an irresponsible twit and blame the other guy... this is the "new american way".
E) Understanding that if you use another guy's product and he has limitations on it, he owns your balls and always will.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
If you disagree with something in the article, if you think it is/isn't FUD, post a reply! That's what the comment section is for. Seriously, if you can't think of anything objective to tag, then don't tag at all. And don't even get me started on mods.
That said, I kinda like the "itsatrap" tag.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
It won't help.
My ISP, an otherwise decent company to get service from, provides me with 2 IP address' because of the level of service I pay for.
I don't use the second one, I don't have a particular need for it, if I did I'd find a way to get my NAT router to get 2 addresses and use the second mapped to a machine; except I'm not allowed to run servers anyway!
IP6 isn't going to change that, I expect ISP's will require some tool be run to register the 'primary' machine or something and only allow 1 or 2 machines on the network, not the full subnets worth.
Which means we have the same problem, slightly shifted.
Why would anybody think ISP's would make it easier to get more machines on the Internet? they have no reason to.
This just means that every vista computer will be running microsoft's DNS server on it tied to the SMB file sharing service.
That's not a good thing.
This just means one more security headache to put up with.
Just one more way for a windows box to be rooted.
They're using their grammar skills there.
but wait, that's not all, order now and recieve this plastic coated keyfob with the microsoft logo, turn over for small mirror. yes, that's the image of a "mark" ...but wait
I like XP, 2000 even better, damn small Linux even more.
--
If I want your opinion I will beat it out of you.
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Just an FYI, as you seem to have not heard about it.
XMMS is dead. Long dead. For three years. And it still has many many bugs in it. It's being depreciated and removed from repositories (Gentoo is taking the initiative, removing it from the Portage tree by the end of November, but other distros will be following suit soon).
You'll want to switch to one of it's forks. BMP was the main fork (Audacious was another), and BMPx is the rewrite of BMP (using very little of the original XMMS code). I reccommend BMPx.
It's always nice to see that Technical Writers for IT magazines are savy enough to know the difference between a Domain Name and a Host Name.
Dear aunt, let's set double the killer delete select all
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
NAT actually breaks security. How can you truly know that the IPSec-capable host you're talking to behind that NAT router is the host you think it is? Authentication and non-repudiation are also part and parcel of security. It's a two-way street - both parties have to be confident they're talking to the right entity...
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
For the last month I've been dealing with various distributions of ubuntu and kubuntu, trying to get them to boot on just one of my three machines:
.Net developer and relatively ignorant linux user, and I'm trying to get off the sinking ship. But I can get XP to take any of these hardware configs without blinking an eye. I WANT to use linux, but I had an easier time getting a desktop 4 years ago in mandrake than I do now in Kubuntu. If it is a pain for me, running mostly commodity hardware, then how the heck can I get my mom or other non-geeks to use it?
homebuilt a64 3200, 9800pro, 1gb
homebuilt a62x2 3800, nvidia 7900gt, 2gb
dell latitude d620 core duo, 1.5gb, intel gfx
None, that is ZERO, will boot from the standard cd, using either dapper or edgy, i386 or amd64. lots of kernel panic.
Flame all you want, but I'm a senior-level
Also, all firewall will have to be reconfigure..., so get security company in there too...
No sig for now.
> XMMS is dead. Long dead. For three years.
Oddly, it seems to still work here.
> BMP was the main fork
I'm familiar with BMP as a file format, but I can't seem to find a media player with that name in the ports tree. Apparently it is more dead than xmms.
> (Audacious was another), and BMPx is the rewrite of BMP
Those two do seem to be in the ports tree. If xmms stops working or I start having problems with it, maybe I'll try one of them.
Bear in mind, pretty much all I want a media player to do is play music and otherwise stay out of my way. The only format I really need it to support is WAV. (I don't like lossy compression. It sounds bad. I guess I'm picky.) It doesn't even need shuffle or advanced playlist features -- if it can open a directory full of symbolic links and play them in asciibetical order, I'm good. (I have my own Perl/MySQL solution for generating the list and creating the symlinks. My shuffling algorithm is very good, plays songs that I've rated higher more often, spread out evenly through the list, never puts the same genre back-to-back, generates in parallel a special playlist consisting only of tracks with no lyrics (for when I want background music that won't distract me), et cetera.) Basically, all it's gotta do is play music.
The only problem I ever had with xmms was when I tried to get that scrobbler thing to work. I'm pretty sure it was the scrobbler thing that was the problem there, and in any case I was only fooling around with it on a whim. (I don't really expect to get good music recommendations from such a service. My tastes are fairly particular. My current playlist is over 45% baroque, although that percentage might go down a bit when I get my other hard drive hooked back up, which contains most of my a capella music collection; then again, it might not -- there's quite a bit of Bach on there too, including most of the Wendy Carlos boxed set. If there's any such thing as too much Bach music, I'm sure my budget cannot afford to buy that amount of it -- at least, not in good quality recordings.) So anyway, scrobbler is not a sufficiently enticing prospect to lure me to experiment with new music players. What I have works.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Well, you are.
i'm not familiar with how IPSec works, but if a NAT router breaks it, it's already broken as any compromised router between you and your destination could do the same thing.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
joesixpack.target.microsoft.com
n00b78954.hitme.microsoft.com
ihvweakpsswds.dummy.microsoft.com
shouldvboughtamac.switch.microsoft.com
linuxnot4me.insecure.microsoft.com
iclikoneverylink.gullable.microsoft.com
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
"According to a Microsoft spokeswoman, Microsoft recently placed an order for 500,000 CD labels, CD sleeves, and packaging boxes labeled "Windows Server 2007", but has also ordered an equal number of small "8" stickers, "just in case.""
Honestly, this seems like a perfectly valid move to me. The proper way to combat piracy is to add value for legitimate purchasers via services... services are a dozen times harder to 'steal' than just bits. A MS operated DNS (even if it is ipv6 only) is a perfectly reasonable service to convince the medium-skill techies (who can format a machine, but not setup a DNS service) to buy rather than copy. These mid-level windows users are the most common casual copiers of the MS OS... they know enough to copy Windows and install a machine, but not enough to delve into Linux.
So, all in all, I think this is a move in the right direction. Added value to the legit buyers, rather than bullshit like 'Genuine Advantage' that only benefits MS.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
A real, practical situation that NAT sucks for?
VoIP.
I cannot tell you how much NAT and associated single routable addresses which mean using PAT as well, suck for VoIP applications, particularly if they're using SIP. A huge portion of my time at work is spent inventing lame workarounds for NAT-related problems for my VoIP users (and explaining how to do it, to people that barely know what a router even is).
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Not "broken" as in "looks like it works, but without any security" but "broken" as in "broken". IPSec does not work through NAT. Period.
Yes, but that is the point. IPSec, among other things, verifies that the packet header has not been altered. NAT alters the packet header. You are correct in stating that if any other router between the source and the destination alters the packet (including the IP header), then IPSec will freak out. Why would a router alter your packet? A router might fragment the packet, but the destination machine should put it back together again. A router will change the MAC header, but that isn't authenticated by IPSec. Only an attempted hijack or man-in-the-middle attack would alter the IP packet header. Maybe an old school ping-of-death would do it too. Personally, I would like my protocol to reject MITM attempts.
Are you suggesting that traffic should be able to flow normally across a compromised router?
This kind of thing almost NEVER happens, oh, the PHB's want it too, they want to brag to other PHB's, "we have Vista and Office 2007! whoot!!" What happens usually is they see the tab and they back-step. I don't think Microsoft is looking for a quick pay-off here. They are shooting long term, but that what all this means is hardware and software upgrades; new spyware releases; new trojans and virii. So you consultants out there get on your knees and thank Saint Bill and Saint Steve (the thrower of chairs), for all the duckets you got comin' your way.
It's all about the Pentiums, Baby
- Wierd Al
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
You'd think people would have figured that out by now, but nevertheless it seems that even in the newest Linux (e.g. Ubuntu) distros, new (and old) users want that crappy old microscopic winamp-ripoff ugly-ass-ancient-GTK1 app. Personally I'll never get why WinAMP and it's clones are popular. I'd like an interface that at least somewhat resembles the rest of my applications, thank you.
But for those who feel differently, why are you using XMMS when BMP, BMPx, Audacious and Zinf exist? All of them are newer and are based on newer code and have a nicer interface (albiet "nicer" in a cloning ugly-ass-WinAMP kind of way).
AmaroK (and to a slightly lesser degree - Rhythmbox, Banshee, Quod Libet and so forth) put WinAMP and it's X-Window clones to shame.
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
sounds like 90% of the idea media player right there
And what good will that do? Waiting untill 'the spam problem' is solved will make you wait forever. If the problem is not directly related, there is no reason to make the solutions dependent.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
wont having a unique identification be the end of anonymity and allow microsoft to force legal copies of windows and other software utilising the unique id?
This is my sig.
Well, if you consider it ugly, the only thing I can offer you is the multitude of skins available for it. They are popular because they have a simple interface for playing music. Stop/play/FFWD/RWD easily accessible. volume. Playlist is simple to use. hit j to get any song from your playlist. I don't think any other player makes it that easy. Plus the zxcvb shortcut keys. I don't really understand the whole "it has to look like my other apps" thing.... If it looked like my other apps it would be less convenient to use. It's handy for apps where I need to *do* consistant things, like actually save a file. Or print... This is an app where you don't open one file to work on, and save them individually as you work on them. Most other apps work that way.
I work for a large global company and we still run Win2k and Offcie 2000 on our standard builds. Some people have Access 2000 installed and some have Access 97.
We are about to migrate from Office 2000 to Office 2003 but the OS and the Access versions will be unchanged.
Seems to me that this is typical in big companies. It is just too risky to live on the bleeding edge. Much better to wait 3 or 4 years until the software is known to be stable.
Eat the rich.
It isn't IPV6 exactly but a combination of PNRP (Peer Name Resolution Protocol) and FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name). See here where PNRP v2 is already incompatible with PNRP. According to this it's a combination of IPv4 and IPv6 called the Next Generation TCP/IP Stack and overcomes shortcomings in the DNS system. I find that article quite difficult to follow. Who would have thought name resolution would have been so complex. Is this one of those propriatry protocols that any third party has to pay MS royaltes to access. One of the protocols MS is being fined by the EU for not publicising. Some source code and API calls not being acceptable.
davecb5620@gmail.com
"We cannot have IPv6 until the authorities and powers that be online, get a handle on the spam problem", mabu
.. DNS relies heavily on caching to improve performance. Unfortunately, this means names cannot be reliably updated in real time.
.. IPv6 hosts can be configured automatically when connected to a routed IPv6 network .. On 20 July 2004 ICANN that the root DNS servers for the Internet had been modified to support both IPv6 and IPv4.
By that logic spam is cause by IPV4. No, the real casue of spam is all those compromised Windows machines out there. How about making an OS that cannot be so easily be co-opted into a spambot network. How about the chief facilator of these spambots imdemnifying companies against getting spammed or hacked. Now that would be really innovative.
DNS name publication requires updates to DNS servers. Most people must contact a server administrator. This takes time and incurs costs. PNRP name publication is instantaneous, effortless, and free
Stateless autoconfiguration of hosts
was Just say NO to ipV6 (score 5 nonsence)
davecb5620@gmail.com
"Will Vista really use IPv6, or an "extended" IPv6-like protocol with patented MS extensions? Anyone know? Is there any chance that we could end up in court if we interoperate with it?
Yes to the first and yes to the second only it is MS that is in court with the EU commision for not opening up the protocols. They provided API calls instead. It has been explicidly stated by a MS execitive that the purpose of MS protocols is prevent entry into the market of OSS projects. You can't be any cleared then that.
"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market."
was Re:IPv6 or IPv6[TM}?
davecb5620@gmail.com
So far, I supported IPv6 mainly because it will provide so vast an address space that it will be impractical for worms to bruteforce (nowadays you can ping an IP address and it will probably reply). Now, Microsoft invalidates this advantage by adding hostnames for every machine. A 5 letter word is easier to brute force than an IPv4 address, and you KNOW there's someone running something vulnerable there. At least I hope to God it's not by default, using your network name or something (which is, thankfully, unlikely).
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
You know, in the real world. I mean, getting a permanent internet name for your machine without you having to do anything sounds good until you think about it.
3 .pnrp.net so you're not going to tell your granny about it over the phone so she can browse to your holiday photos.
But, first off, that name is going to be biglig-p.p4562b4628ac54782dda52789038476237e7c726
Secondly, if someone is connecting to your machine, that means you've got to have a service listening to it, right? So you have to configure the service, and your firewall. So why not spend another 5 minutes registering a DDNS name that doesn't look like you spilt coke on your numeric keypad?
Thirdly, what sort of service do you need to run on your PC? Web page to host your photos? Er.. Flickr. Web page of your diary? Er... Blogger. Video? Er... YourTube. Share your documents? Er... Writely. etc. etc. Only one I can think of is remote control so your granny can connect to your PC and fix it.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Also, multicast only works when large groups of people are watching the same thing at the same time - like a concert broadcast over the Internet. It isn't going to help you download your pr0n and warez any faster.
the pain of an office rollout is the conversion of old excel spreadsheets knee deep in macros and clunking Vb front-ended access databases to a new version of non backward-compatible office. the desktop end is relatively painless and there is no real justification for bundling the two
Unless a large number of people are watching pr0n and downloading warez.
Does it really make any sense to use the 52 character domain name vs the 25 character IPV6 address?
considering that the IPV6 address should remain constant (we have plenty of them to go around, so there is no reason not to have static IP addresses in IPV6) what advantage did he gain there?
No one in my office got this, let me spell it out:
"You can write better with the voice-recognition software included with Vista!!!"
I ans my wife read /. AND I have a son!! I'm like a God!!
We may, indeed, share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, but then, we share 47% with cabbages.
Someone uploads a piece of a file and its addressed to multiple peers who dont have that piece.
You need to think outside the box with these things. Just because its not what multicast was designed to do doesnt mean that it wont work well.
sounds like you could use mpg123
> Why not use FLAC, then?
I was thinking about it, but I haven't gotten around to it. I keep waiting for it to become widely supported, and it's happening _very_ gradually. I'll probably get around to trying it out eventually.
Although, a savings of 50% without loss of information seems _very_ unlikely on WAV files. They don't compress well, because they don't have a lot of redundancy in them. (A quick test with a Vivaldi concerto and bzip2 -9 yields less than 18% savings. I realize bzip2 compression is not the best available, but it's good enough that I don't see anything improving on it by an entire order of magnitude without loss of information. 20% space savings, to my way of thinking, isn't worth the computational overhead of running decompression every time I play a track.)
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I just did a quick test with the 1812 Overture (the Telarc release, if it matters), and it went from 160MB to 69MB for a 14-minute piece of music. Admittedly, this is probably one of the best results I have seen with flac, and I was using -8 (maximum compression), but still, savings of around 57% is pretty darn good. Bzip2 (-9) managed ~26%.
;-)
For good measure, I tried it with the other tracks from the same album and got ~50% compression on average with flac -8.
With more *ahem* modern music I get slightly worse compression, the worst case ~25%, but since it was a black metal track, it was pretty darn close to random noise anyway
Eat the rich.
> I just did a quick test with the 1812 Overture (the Telarc release, if it
> matters), and it went from 160MB to 69MB for a 14-minute piece of music.
> Admittedly, this is probably one of the best results I have seen with flac,
That's rather better compression than I would ever expect (losslessly) on recorded music. (MIDI is another matter, of course, but that's more like sheet music (err, sort of) than recorded music.)
Perhaps I will have a look at FLAC when I get another round tuit.
> With more *ahem* modern music
Music without counterpoint is like spaghetti without noodles.
(Okay, okay, so I do listen to some modern music, from several different genres. I don't have any metal in my collection though, although I do have two or three rock tracks that are sufficiently hard that I've heard industrial metal that's not as hard. The combination of instruments is wrong for metal, though, and the group in question (Petra) is definitely rock and does a lot of much lighter stuff; only the two or three tracks that I have are really hard.)
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
No way in hell, will large corporate IT rollout both Vista and Office 2007 at the same time! For starters they are 1.0 releases of a new OS and new Office Suite. Then you've got the end user training issue; the interface has changed so radically that it will require extensive training. I don't know about you but putting 50,000 employees through Vista and Office 2007 training is not going to be cheap by any figment of the imagination! All the hardware will have to be Vista certified and from what I've seen have at least 2GB of RAM! FYI, enterprise hardware on the workstation side doesn't mean state of the art. It means economy desktops and laptops that are consistent over years! The IT staff hasn't been trained on Vista either. Only a handful of our tech's and engineers have even played with Vista RC1/RC2! Our engineers will wait for a release then have to figure out how to shutoff most of the Vista new features because they would be a security hazard or cause incompatibilities in our environment. i.e. we still run SP1 w/SP2 hotfixes without actually running SP2 because it breaks half our legacy apps!
It would be more likely for a large corporation to rollout a customized Ubuntu workstation that includes OpenOffice, FireFox 2.0, and a Citrix client. Authenticate it to LDAP and Siteminder that to ActiveDirectory. Run all the required Windows apps under Citrix Farms and keep our old ratty hardware for another 4 years to save money!
It would be even easier to switch everyone to Apple Mac's, again with the Citrix Farm. Mac OS X will already join into Active Directory better then Linux will. Using Office 2004 for the Mac (yeah I know, Rosetta but still pretty fast) and a plan to go to Open Office (er NeoOffice). OS X is more likely to work with folks cell phones and PDA's.
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved